Table 1 Overview of studies reviewed
From: Protective socks for people with diabetes: a systematic review and narrative analysis
Study | Demographic data | Inclusion criteria (in addition to diabetes) | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
Blackwell et al. [34] | N° of subjects 21 | Diabetes with foot complaints, no active ulceration | Plantar pressure assessed with Parotec system |
Gender 10Â M : 11Â F | |||
Mean age (range) 57.4 (20-83) | No significant difference between JBOST diabetic sock, normal sock or barefoot | ||
Diabetes duration Not stated | |||
Veves et al. [35] | N° of subjects 27 | High plantar pressures (>10 kg/cm2) | Plantar pressure assessed with optical pedobarograph |
Gender 15 M: 2 F | Neuropathy (diminished nerve conduction & vibration perception) | Experimental socks [Thorlo] provided significant pressure reduction compared with pts own socks or barefoot (both p < 0.001) | |
Mean age (range) 54 (26-74) | |||
Diabetes duration not stated | Able walk unaided, no PVD, no ulcer history | ||
Veves et al. [36] | Gender not stated | Neuropathy (diminished vibration perception & absent ankle reflex) | Plantar pressure assessed with optical pedobarograph |
Experimental group (n = 10) | |||
mean age (range) 51.3 (27-65) | |||
Duration of diabetes not stated | Significant reduction in pressure of experimental socks [Thorlo] compared with padded sports socks & barefoot (all p < 0.001). Pressure reduction maintained by experimental socks at 3 & 6 months. | ||
Control group n = 16 | |||
Mean age (range) 55.8 (33-70) | |||
Garrow et al. [37] | N° of subjects 19 | Neuropathy (neuropathy disability score >5 or diminished vibration perception ≥25). | Plantar pressure assessed with F-scan system |
Gender 15Â M:4Â F | |||
Mean age (range) 65.5 (39-80) | Ulcer-free at recruitment | Preventative Foot Care Diabetic socks provided significant increase in foot contact area (p < 0.01), a reduction total pressure (p < 0.01). | |
Diabetes duration median 20Â yrs | |||
High plantar pressure (≥6 kg/cm2). | |||
Murray et al. [38] | N° of subjects 86 | Neuropathy (diminished pressure or vibration perception) | Questionnaire based satisfaction survey over 6 month period using Thorlo socks |
Gender 69Â M :17Â F | |||
Mean age (range) 63 (34-85) | No active ulceration | Socks reported good/very good by 86%, average by 12% & poor by 3%. | |
Mean diabetes (range) 16 (1–45 yrs | 84% reported continue sock use at 3 & 6 months | ||
Banchellini et al. [39] | N° of subjects 30 | Peripheral neuropathy (ADA criteria) | Skin parameters tested: |
Gender not stated | Hydration (hydration score) Hardness (Durometer) | ||
Group A (Difoprev) socks | Anhidrosis (Clinical features & Neuropad test) | Moisture loss (Scalar moisture checker) | |
Mean age 59.6 (SD13.8) | Water loss (TEWL vapometer) | ||
Duration diabetes 16.1 (SD9) | No active ulceration, ABPI >0.9, Serum creatinine >2Â mg/dL | All skin parmeters improved over 6Â week trial (Difoprev) socks & normal socks | |
Group B (no active sock ingredient) | |||
Mean age 61.4 (SD15.5) | Skin hydration p < 0.01 Skin hardness p <0.05 | ||
Duration diabetes 15.7 (SD6.9) | No systemic skin disease, no B-blocker therapy | ||
Controls (normal socks) | Skin moisture loss p < 0.01 Skin water loss p < 0.01 | ||
Mean age 60.5 (SD11.4) | |||
Yick et al. [40] | No of subjects 4 | No inclusion criteria stated | Plantar pressure (Pedar system) |
Gender not stated | Skin temperature & humidity (system not stated) | ||
Age not stated | Socks tested not stated | ||
Diabetes duration not stated | Considerable pressure reduction stated but not per sock type | ||
Thermal properties are stated but not compared between socks or post sock wear |